DE PARTISANS A CASA DE LAS AMÉRICAS

As mentioned earlier, all of the respondents in this study reported that their faculty mentoring programs were established to meet the unmet mentoring needs of faculty members within their departments and divisions, thus the need for centralized administration. As described by the respondents participating in this study, their faculty mentoring programs are organizational change agents; programs designed to bring about change in mentoring practices.

Although there are mixed opinions with regard to centralized versus decentralized implementation, there is a strong consensus that for uniform institutional accountability, and to effect organizational culture change, responsibility for the administration of faculty mentoring

We had to change the environment and the culture. It is a hard thing to do and takes a long time. The best way to do it was to actually continually keep the message that mentoring was important, and that we were going to help.

A respondent from another faculty mentoring program recognized that his organization has a long way to go to effect culture change: “It [mentoring] is written into the promotion and tenure guidelines as a single line as one example of what is important. It will require a culture change at this point.”

Another respondent expressed that, “I’ve been able to match junior faculty members, who have since become associate faculty members, and it’s sort of like paying it forward.” She is witnessing positive changes in attitudes towards junior faculty mentoring as a result of junior faculty members participating in her organization’s faculty mentoring program.

4.4.6.5 Sustainability

One respondent succinctly addressed the issue of the sustainability of her faculty mentoring program. She does so, not from the perspective of her program’s structure, or its political standing and organizational resources, but from the symbolic value junior faculty members derive from their mentoring experiences:

In order for this to sustain long-term, the people who participate have to feel the value of what they got out of it. It may not be very tangible up front. It may not be very direct what they get out of it, and they may not tangibly be able to put their hands on it. It’s more a feeling that they got something out of it that they can use long-term.

4.4.7 Summary

This section examined the four faculty mentoring program study variables that have been assigned to the symbolic organizational perspective: 1) aligned with organizational goals and objectives, 2) inclusive design that instills mentoring as a cultural value, 3) strategies for identifying the developmental needs of participants, and 4) clarity with regard to goals and expectations. Five new variables emerged from the data: 1) passion of program leadership and mentors, 2) academic culture expectations, 3) generational differences regarding mentoring expectations, 4) culture change, and 5) sustainability. Although these variables are classified as belonging to the symbolic domain of faculty mentoring programs, the influences of the other two organizational perspectives, the structural and political domains, emerged relative to the respondents’ descriptions of their organizations’ social milieus.

The respondents indicated that their faculty mentoring programs are relatively well aligned with organizational goals and objectives. These goals include: contributing to retention, facilitating career success and satisfaction, achieving promotion and tenure, fostering collaboration, and building a sense of community. Half of the faculty mentoring programs are voluntary for junior faculty members, and half are required. Four faculty mentoring programs, which include the three highly structured faculty mentoring programs, are limited or selective with regard to junior faculty participation. Thus, these programs are the least inclusive among the twelve faculty mentoring programs.

The respondents reported a range of strategies being used for identifying the developmental needs of participants: faculty surveys, faculty focus groups, organizational indicators of attrition and low morale, and modeling other peer institutions. The Web sites of the

regard to the organizational goals of the faculty mentoring programs, which are consistent with the respondents’ comments. The three highly structured faculty mentoring programs have very structured approaches to communicating the expectations of mentoring relationships; the other nine programs, less so.

Five new variables emerged from the data. The “passion” of mentoring program leadership and mentors is referenced as important to generating support for faculty mentoring programs and recruiting mentors. One respondent is concerned that depending on passionate senior faculty colleagues as mentors, in lieu of financial incentives, is not a sustainable model within his organization.

Several respondents recognized that the changing economic landscape of research funding presents challenges to new faculty members, since academic culture expectations are still based upon publishing papers and acquiring external funding. Generational differences between junior and senior faculty members contribute to different expectations regarding mentoring. Some respondents considered junior faculty members to expect mentoring; however, the respondents also indicated that not all senior faculty members consider mentoring to be a collegial responsibility.

Most of the respondents participating in this study framed their faculty mentoring programs as organizational change agents; their programs are designed to facilitate change in mentoring practices within their organizations. Most respondents indicated that for uniform institutional accountability, and to effect organizational culture change, responsibility for faculty mentoring programs needs to be accepted by an authority above the departmental or divisional levels.

Lastly, one respondent noted that the sustainability of her faculty mentoring program ultimately depends upon the value that the junior faculty members attribute to their mentoring experiences. The value may not be immediately tangible, but “it’s more a feeling that they got something out of it that they can use long-term.”

4.5 SUMMARY

This section described the results of the data, as originally proposed, from three separate perspectives of organizational culture: the structural perspective, the political perspective, and the symbolic perspective. The a priori variables that are examined are based upon the sixteen faculty mentoring program success factors that Zellers et al. (2008) compiled from descriptive, evaluative, and research-based literature in both business and higher education. Twelve new variables emerge from the data. One emergent variable, sustainability, was evident under two of the organizational perspectives: political and symbolic.

This initial treatment of the data is presented because it represents the discoveries that influenced me to change course and examine the data from a new organizational paradigm. That is, although study variables were isolated within individual organizational perspectives, the influences of the other two organizational perspectives could not be ignored. Additionally, the diverse structural, political, and symbolic circumstances of the twelve faculty mentoring programs clouded and limited my ability to detect any significant organizational themes from the viewpoint of the original conceptual framework.

Thus, the presentation of the original treatment of the data is necessary to share the evolutionary journey that eventually led me to reverse the conceptual framework of this study, so

that each variable was examined from the three different organizational perspectives. Chapter 5 describes the findings that resulted from the original study design. Chapter 6 expands on how I transitioned to the new study design, and describes the multi-dimensional organizational themes that consequently emerged from the new study design; and thus, represent the final conclusions of this study.

5.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The following are the responses to the original research questions:

1. From a structural perspective, what are the organizational similarities among faculty mentoring programs in major American research universities?

Very few organizational similarities were found among the twelve sample faculty mentoring programs when viewed from a structural perspective.

2. From a political perspective, what are the organizational similarities among faculty mentoring programs in major American research universities?

Very few organizational similarities were found among the twelve sample faculty mentoring programs when viewed from a political perspective.

3. From a symbolic perspective, what are the organizational similarities among faculty mentoring programs in major American research universities?

Very few organizational similarities were found among the twelve sample faculty mentoring programs when viewed from a symbolic perspective.